we currently have laws against carrying guns on planes. THis is to safeguard the right of preserving the peace and secuding the safety of passengers. Another example is illustrated in an event you possibly made some remark on: Plaxico Burress carrying a loaded gun into a bar (I am sure we all remember that!).

Exactly what "rights of others" are you citing in these cases?

The state has the authority to place reasonable safety restrictions in public places. That's not about the "rights of others".

If persons were to be allowed to carry guns on a plane, what "right" of theirs would be violated?

Every law is about safeguarding some right. Sometimes is safeguarding your right to "life" as in life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. THat is the basis for regulating the sale of food and medicines for example. Sometimes it is about safeguarding freedom of speach.

By the way, I did just read your apology related to a previous comment. I gratefully accept.

Clearly you and I will not see eye to eye on certain apsects of this issue - though we likely agree on some points. If some poeple who were apparently being dogmatic have started to consider that opposing perspectives have might have some concrete validity then this has been a good thing. It is often the case that two conflicting points of view each have their strengths and weaknesses. Too often in emotionally charged political issues there are people who think strictly in black and white, good and bad.

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals. We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a "law-abiding citizen."

One in four is "typical"? And we are to take the criminal's word for it that their being shot was done by some "bad guy" acting as a criminal toward them? LMAO

Another example:

"9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals. We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a "law-abiding citizen."

One in four is "typical"? And we are to take the criminal's word for it that their being shot was done by some "bad guy" acting as a criminal toward them? LMAO

Another example:

"9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

we currently have laws against carrying guns on planes. THis is to safeguard the right of preserving the peace and secuding the safety of passengers. Another example is illustrated in an event you possibly made some remark on: Plaxico Burress carrying a loaded gun into a bar (I am sure we all remember that!).

Exactly what "rights of others" are you citing in these cases?

The state has the authority to place reasonable safety restrictions in public places. That's not about the "rights of others".

If persons were to be allowed to carry guns on a plane, what "right" of theirs would be violated?

Every law is about safeguarding some right. Sometimes is safeguarding your right to "life" as in life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. THat is the basis for regulating the sale of food and medicines for example. Sometimes it is about safeguarding freedom of speach.

By the way, I did just read your apology related to a previous comment. I gratefully accept.

Clearly you and I will not see eye to eye on certain apsects of this issue - though we likely agree on some points. If some poeple who were apparently being dogmatic have started to consider that opposing perspectives have might have some concrete validity then this has been a good thing. It is often the case that two conflicting points of view each have their strengths and weaknesses. Too often in emotionally charged political issues there are people who think strictly in black and white, good and bad.

As I've said, I am in favor of some sensible gun control laws. I am more interested in law that would restrict WHO can have a firearm and how they should secure those weapons than any restriction on specific kinds of firearms.

And I am not so callous as to disregard the extremely important aspect of states being entitled to determine their own laws without opression from federal dictums.

I guess we should just take you and all your NRA buddies at your word that all of this research by Harvard is nonsense, and that you and your gun toting friends are telling the truth.

I doubt that any honest person would deny Harvard has an agenda. And I don't belong to the NRA. And I never said I tote a gun.

If you want to take as credible that Harvard says reports of firearms being used to prevent crime are spurious "because the criminals said so", then knock yourself out. Me, I'm going to stick with common sense regarding the matter.

Generally speaking, everytime a "law" is passed, there are unintended consequences,and some percentage of the populace affected will feel "disenfranchised". This has been gong on for a long time, and will never stop. It can't ever stop. It's a sad commentary when some folks feel that the benefit they will enjoy under a law can and should outweigh and place burden or limitations on someone else. It's really tough to discuss, let alone argue what a "general good" is, and for whom.

I have to begrudgingly give The Great Amateur credit for giving Joe Bozo marching orders when coming up with a plan to "solve" this problem in 30 days (ROFLMFAO!!!!), that he also out mental health into play. The sad part is that, with this 30 day dictate, very little will address mental health, and more of the "cure" will go to try and further restrict the right to purchase and own a gun. I can't wait to see what they come up with re: violent video games, movies, and TV programs. Talk about "rights violations"!!! That ought to be interesting and worthy of debate during Happy Hour on Friday night at the Bloated Goat Pub.

As for you People's Republic Libbies, don't ever get on the "not enough if being done on mental health issues". In the 70's the state, in it's wonderful decree, that the institutions int eh state, like Danvers and Northhampton had to be closed. They determined that the "tenents" were just as sane/normal, and could live rich and productives lives outside of those walls. (BS !!! All they wanted to do was cut budgetary expenses; the state legislature was and still is predominately libbies. They would, could, and do pass whatever they want, as if anyone will dissent, or if it would ever cost them their seats.) So we got a whole bunch of mentally ill people wandering city streets, with no place to go, no where withall of making a living, not getting the care they needed. Families of these people knew this was a bad thing, but the know-it-all libbies still passed the bill, and cleaned out the institutions. For many of those "tenents", those institutions were the only home they ever knew, whether in their whole lives or for as far back as they could remember. I believe that most of those folks are now no longer with us. But, the issue is like all others in the history of this country: slavery, expansion, taxes...... why address it now? I wantto be/stay the Good Guy! Let some other poor schlep deal with it. It'll be kicked down the road until there is a point where it can't be kicked any further.

we currently have laws against carrying guns on planes. THis is to safeguard the right of preserving the peace and secuding the safety of passengers. Another example is illustrated in an event you possibly made some remark on: Plaxico Burress carrying a loaded gun into a bar (I am sure we all remember that!).

Exactly what "rights of others" are you citing in these cases?

The state has the authority to place reasonable safety restrictions in public places. That's not about the "rights of others".

If persons were to be allowed to carry guns on a plane, what "right" of theirs would be violated?

Every law is about safeguarding some right. Sometimes is safeguarding your right to "life" as in life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. THat is the basis for regulating the sale of food and medicines for example. Sometimes it is about safeguarding freedom of speach.

By the way, I did just read your apology related to a previous comment. I gratefully accept.

Clearly you and I will not see eye to eye on certain apsects of this issue - though we likely agree on some points. If some poeple who were apparently being dogmatic have started to consider that opposing perspectives have might have some concrete validity then this has been a good thing. It is often the case that two conflicting points of view each have their strengths and weaknesses. Too often in emotionally charged political issues there are people who think strictly in black and white, good and bad.

As I've said, I am in favor of some sensible gun control laws. I am more interested in law that would restrict WHO can have a firearm and how they should secure those weapons than any restriction on specific kinds of firearms.

And I am not so callous as to disregard the extremely important aspect of states being entitled to determine their own laws without opression from federal dictums.

I guess we should just take you and all your NRA buddies at your word that all of this research by Harvard is nonsense, and that you and your gun toting friends are telling the truth.

WHile I likely agree with some aspects of your overall position I have pointed out how using labels is demeaning, divisive and counterproductive. This is true whether it comes in the form of "you bleeding heart liberals" or "you and your NRA buddies".

Think about this one point - if you go to denigrating you lose all hope of finding common ground, of developing some degree of mutual respect, of building a base to reach some sort of resolution (perfect or imperfect). I DO KNOW that in the face of obtuse rhetoric and name calling it can be very very hard not to respond in a like manner. But if you can resist that and give some respect it may be returned later.

Bottom line is that we have all kinds of real problems that need to be resolved. Some are truly critical. Some are perhaps less critical but certainly important. And one of the roadblocks to resolving our problems is OURSELVES. We blame each other rather than finding partners.

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals. We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a "law-abiding citizen."

One in four is "typical"? And we are to take the criminal's word for it that their being shot was done by some "bad guy" acting as a criminal toward them? LMAO

Another example:

"9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

I guess we should just take you and all your NRA buddies at your word that all of this research by Harvard is nonsense, and that you and your gun toting friends are telling the truth.

Yeah, because we all know there is no bias at Harvard. LMAO

Funniest part is: The specific point being made about the studies is ignored and the relative value of the political credentials of the opposing viewpoints are offered as some sort of intelligent retort.

As I've said, I am in favor of some sensible gun control laws. I am more interested in law that would restrict WHO can have a firearm and how they should secure those weapons than any restriction on specific kinds of firearms.

And I am not so callous as to disregard the extremely important aspect of states being entitled to determine their own laws without opression from federal dictums.

As I expected, we have some common ground.

The problem is: Despite any common ground the gun control people are largely unwilling to compromise to pass sensible gun law then STOP. They would consider it a partial victory and start working to add to the laws before the ink was dry on the one just passed.

This causes the gun rights people to dig their heels in so you never even get the compromise.

As I've said, I am in favor of some sensible gun control laws. I am more interested in law that would restrict WHO can have a firearm and how they should secure those weapons than any restriction on specific kinds of firearms.

And I am not so callous as to disregard the extremely important aspect of states being entitled to determine their own laws without opression from federal dictums.

As I expected, we have some common ground.

The problem is: Despite any common ground the gun control people are largely unwilling to compromise to pass sensible gun law then STOP. They would consider it a partial victory and start working to add to the laws before the ink was dry on the one just passed.

This causes the gun rights people to dig their heels in so you never even get the compromise.

"Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, a public policy expert at the University of California-Los Angeles."

...is "crap somebody posts on the internet"?

Again, you refuse to address the critique of the study and cling to the prestige of Harvard. Here's a clue - HARVARD IS AS LIBERAL AS THEY COME!!!

Sorry, Babe, but your "critique" isn't based on anything but your own uniformed assumptions. Unless you actually research the authors' methodology and test whether their methods are reliable or not, you're just talking out your a r s e. You may think it's "common sense" but for thousands of years "common sense" told anyone who walked down the street that the world was flat.

Sorry, Babe, but your "critique" isn't based on anything but your own uniformed assumptions. Unless you actually research the authors' methodology and test whether their methods are reliable or not, you're just talking out your a r s e. You may think it's "common sense" but for thousands of years "common sense" told anyone who walked down the street that the world was flat.

Wrong. Did you even read the link before you spouted off about me being "uninformed"? Just get off your high horse mr. man, because if anybody is bringing the discussion down to a lower level, it's you. At this point you have been reduced to nothing more than ad hominem attacks.

If you bothered to read my "critique" you would have noted that I scrutinized the two instances because they derived their conclusion by using data from surveys of detainees... as if asking a criminal what happened is credible "data"! LMAO THAT. isn't my assumption.

Apparently I am far more "informed" than you since I actually read the stuff and didn't simply use the shallow tactic of touting the source rather than scrutinizing the substance (or in this case, the lack thereof).

"Means Matter" Supported by Bohnett FoundationHICRC has been awarded a grant from the Bohnett Foundation to support the "Means Matter" campaign, a social marketing campaign aimed at educating members of the 50 statewide suicide prevention coalitions about the connection between firearms at home and increased risk of suicide.

Sorry, Babe, but your "critique" isn't based on anything but your own uniformed assumptions. Unless you actually research the authors' methodology and test whether their methods are reliable or not, you're just talking out your a r s e. You may think it's "common sense" but for thousands of years "common sense" told anyone who walked down the street that the world was flat.

Wrong. Did you even read the link before you spouted off about me being "uninformed"? Just get off your high horse mr. man, because if anybody is bringing the discussion down to a lower level, it's you. At this point you have been reduced to nothing more than ad hominem attacks.

If you bothered to read my "critique" you would have noted that I scrutinized the two instances because they derived their conclusion by using data from surveys of detainees... as if asking a criminal what happened is credible "data"! LMAO THAT. isn't my assumption.

Apparently I am far more "informed" than you since I actually read the stuff and didn't simply use the shallow tactic of touting the source rather than scrutinizing the substance (or in this case, the lack thereof).

And the world is flat, relatively speaking.

The link is to an abstract of an article! You made a simplistic assumption about the information provided by detainees being unreliable, but you never read the actual article, examined the author's actual methodology, or tested his methods scientifically to prove they were unreliable. All you did was make an assumption that information gathered from prisoners must be unreliable. That's a completely untested assumption you're making. Sure, it may seem like "common sense" but it could be (and likely is) completely wrong. Sounds good, though, to people who don't think critically much . . .

"Means Matter" Supported by Bohnett FoundationHICRC has been awarded a grant from the Bohnett Foundation to support the "Means Matter" campaign, a social marketing campaign aimed at educating members of the 50 statewide suicide prevention coalitions about the connection between firearms at home and increased risk of suicide.

Both of these foundations are openly anti-gun.

Well, that's how research is funded in America. The gun industry and the NRA fund lots of other studies too. It doesn't necessarily mean the research is biased however--though one always has to be careful about what one reads (on any side of any issue) because of this.

Which is why, though, if you really want to understand the truth you have to read the original sources (and multiple sources) and not just have knee-jerk reactions based on your own biases and untested, unscientific opinions, which is what Babe is doing.

If you want to discuss the merits of a study, read this entire article and then we can debate the authors' methodology. This, by the way, was a government funded study. It was one of the last of those, because after it was published, the NRA lobbied congress (successfully) to prevent the government from funding more studies like this. Because of the NRA, it is now very difficult for medical researchers to get any government funding for research on gun violence. That's one reason a lot of gun research is now funded by private foundations.

All you did was make an assumption that information gathered from prisoners must be unreliable.

Let's take a poll. We'll see how many folks think that CRIMINALS are reliable providers of information. Let's crap on the 2nd Amendment because CRIMINALS have been the completely honest guys I'm sure you think they are.

But you could be on to something in noting the author's "methodology" might have been effective. Maybe he asked the CRIMINALS "pretty please" to be honest. LMAO

All you did was make an assumption that information gathered from prisoners must be unreliable.

Let's take a poll. We'll see how many folks think that CRIMINALS are reliable providers of information. Let's crap on the 2nd Amendment because CRIMINALS have been the completely honest guys I'm sure you think they are.

But you could be on to something in noting the author's "methodology" might have been effective. Maybe he asked the CRIMINALS "pretty please" to be honest. LMAO